Thank you Majority Leader Reid (D-NV) for bringing this up for a vote.

[chikenwing]

Will he include the massive contributions from the Unions and his buddies at the same time.............

Cry me a river.

Read the OP and you won't need to ask stupid questions.

LOL

The Dems whining about contributions when they get massive donations themselves............Hypocrisy at it's finest.............

NEWSFLASH!!! They are playing by the rules that are in place. When the rules are changed for the better, which reid is trying to do, then they'll live within those guidelines. See how that works?

News flash,why now and not in the last how many years?? you people are like a pane of glass, esy to look right through the shit! Bet it has nothing to do with this fall??

 

[SmileyFaze]

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has set up a procedural vote for September on a constitutional amendment to limit money in politics.

Before adjourning for a five-week recess on Friday, Reid filed cloture on the motion to proceed to S.J. Res. 19, which is designed to overturn two recent Supreme Court decisions that allowed corporations, labor unions and wealthy individuals to spend more money on federal elections.

Ok, he's only set a procedural vote which means nothing. The Amendment itself needs to pass both House & Senate by a Super Majority, then it must go to the States where 39 States (3/4) need to pass it through within a predetermined time period (usually about 7 years).

A walk in da park!!!!

Reid wont live to see it, so what's his angle.

This is just a political stunt to solidify a base, & throw everyone off balance....that is except the demotards, who will jump on this like stink on shit setting up the 2016 Presidential Election Year.

 

[dblack]

This is not going to pass. They will never get the 2/3rds of the votes needed.

I don't know. Republicans are growing increasingly wary of third party runs by tea party offshoots. This kind of law will protect their incumbencies just as effectively as it protects entrenched Democrats. Sad fact, Democrats and Republicans tend to agree when it comes to maintaining state power.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If it passes, I may start voting in national elections again.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has set up a procedural vote for September on a constitutional amendment to limit money in politics.

Before adjourning for a five-week recess on Friday, Reid filed cloture on the motion to proceed to S.J. Res. 19, which is designed to overturn two recent Supreme Court decisions that allowed corporations, labor unions and wealthy individuals to spend more money on federal elections.

Read more: Reid schedules vote in September on amending the Constitution TheHill
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

That is the funniest thing I ever read.

Just an FYI, Reid is accusing Republicans of obstruction because they didn't vote against allowing debate on this.

Harry Reid is mad that Republicans didn t obstruct his bill WashingtonExaminer.com

Feel like a complete idiot and a dupe yet? If not, you aren't smart enough to discuss politics.

 

[mamooth]

I thank Reid for yet another circuit court judge confirmation, Jill Pryor to the Eleventh Circuit. The circuit courts are one step below the Supreme Court, so these confirmations are big deals. Reid has steadily been pushing Obama's nominees through (only 7 vacancies left), hence the conservative rage.

There are 13 circuit courts. Republican nominees are the majority on 5-6-7-8. Democratic nominees are now the majority on 1-2-3-4-9-10-11-DC-Federal, and that's how the situation will remain for many years. Again, thanks Harry Reid! Republican unconstitutional power grabs are made much more difficult when rational courts are around.

 

[longknife]

If it passes, I may start voting in national elections again.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has set up a procedural vote for September on a constitutional amendment to limit money in politics.

Before adjourning for a five-week recess on Friday, Reid filed cloture on the motion to proceed to S.J. Res. 19, which is designed to overturn two recent Supreme Court decisions that allowed corporations, labor unions and wealthy individuals to spend more money on federal elections.

Read more: Reid schedules vote in September on amending the Constitution TheHill
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

As with almost everything Dingy Harry does, this is nothing but stupid grandstanding!

As it's a constitutional amendment, it needs a 2/3 vote to be sent to the House where it will instantly his the garbage bin.

And, if my some miracle, it passed the house, it would need to go to the states. California, Illinois, and New York might consider it but the rest will instantly toss it in the circular file.

 

[Tyler.mcbee]

Hi all! I'm new here, so this is my first response. I will say I haven't read too much on this legislation and what it does, so I may be way off, so let's see how this goes.

Although I'm an Independent Conservative and I don't have a strong liking for Senator Reid, I'm not sure how limiting campaign spending is restricting freedom of speech. To me, limiting the amount of money that can be put into campaigns is eliminating the ability for campaigns with a larger budget to win. The way I see it, campaigns are winning because of their budget, not necessarily because they are the better candidate.

If there is a limit on campaign spending, then campaigns would be forced to get their message, ideas, and beliefs for being the better candidate out directly to the public, meeting the Americans that they would be representing.

I can see how others can see that a campaign spending limit would limit free speech. It wouldn't allow some donors to express their opinions in terms of donations, but why not use their resources elsewhere? Expressing your political beliefs and ideas isn't only possible through money.

I believe putting a cap on spending would level the playing field for candidates to really earn the vote and be chosen because they are the best, not because their campaign budget was in the billions.

 

[dblack]

The main thing is to give those currently in power control over how challengers can fund their campaigns. Duh.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I will continue to "opt-out" of the voting process until I know who they work for. I thought they were supposed to work for ALL the people.

Please tell all your friends who think like you to opt out too. The less low-think voters we have voting the better things will be for the Republic.

Thanks.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Hi all! I'm new here, so this is my first response. I will say I haven't read too much on this legislation and what it does, so I may be way off, so let's see how this goes.

Although I'm an Independent Conservative and I don't have a strong liking for Senator Reid, I'm not sure how limiting campaign spending is restricting freedom of speech. To me, limiting the amount of money that can be put into campaigns is eliminating the ability for campaigns with a larger budget to win. The way I see it, campaigns are winning because of their budget, not necessarily because they are the better candidate.

If there is a limit on campaign spending, then campaigns would be forced to get their message, ideas, and beliefs for being the better candidate out directly to the public, meeting the Americans that they would be representing.

I can see how others can see that a campaign spending limit would limit free speech. It wouldn't allow some donors to express their opinions in terms of donations, but why not use their resources elsewhere? Expressing your political beliefs and ideas isn't only possible through money.

I believe putting a cap on spending would level the playing field for candidates to really earn the vote and be chosen because they are the best, not because their campaign budget was in the billions.

There's so much I could tell you about how foolishly arbitrary and confused your thinking is, but why bother? Please opt of voting too.

Thanks.

 

[bodecea]

Will he include the massive contributions from the Unions and his buddies at the same time.............

Cry me a river.

Read the OP and you won't need to ask stupid questions.

LOL

The Dems whining about contributions when they get massive donations themselves............Hypocrisy at it's finest.............

Let's see how the Republicans vote on this.

 

[eagle1462010]

Will he include the massive contributions from the Unions and his buddies at the same time.............

Cry me a river.

Read the OP and you won't need to ask stupid questions.

LOL

The Dems whining about contributions when they get massive donations themselves............Hypocrisy at it's finest.............

Let's see how the Republicans vote on this.

I believe it should get the up yours vote...........Yep. That will about sum it up.

 

[dblack]

Will he include the massive contributions from the Unions and his buddies at the same time.............

Cry me a river.

Read the OP and you won't need to ask stupid questions.

LOL

The Dems whining about contributions when they get massive donations themselves............Hypocrisy at it's finest.............

Let's see how the Republicans vote on this.

Yep. I'm betting they start quietly supporting it over the coming weeks.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

If it passes, I may start voting in national elections again.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has set up a procedural vote for September on a constitutional amendment to limit money in politics.

Before adjourning for a five-week recess on Friday, Reid filed cloture on the motion to proceed to S.J. Res. 19, which is designed to overturn two recent Supreme Court decisions that allowed corporations, labor unions and wealthy individuals to spend more money on federal elections.

Read more: Reid schedules vote in September on amending the Constitution TheHill
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

Edited because accidentally put my msg inside the quotes

And it was reported today or yesterday that a single donor gave Karl rove's group $10,000,00,000. How many TV ads will that buy the rabid right?

Dot - you have got to vote.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

A couple of other notes - While the president deals with ISIS, congress has gone on vacation. But, that won't stop them from lying about what he says and does. Where are they when they're supposed to be doing their job? They're out campaigning, raising money, gerrymandering.

And has anyone heard Rand Paul today? How scary is it that he's the voice of sanity for the R party?

 

[dblack]

A couple of other notes - While the president deals with ISIS, congress has gone on vacation. But, that won't stop them from lying about what he says and does. Where are they when they're supposed to be doing their job? They're out campaigning, raising money, gerrymandering.

And has anyone heard Rand Paul today? How scary is it that he's the voice of sanity for the R party?

Probably scares you in the same way this did:

Progressives and the Ron Paul fallacies - Salon.com

 

[Dot Com]

lots of rw ad homs in my thread. Knock it off trolls. Don't have something constructive to add/, take your secondary school, playground taunts elsewhere

 

[whitehall]

What's the problem? Any individual citizen in the greatest Country in the world can incorporate. Groups can incorporate. The Sierra Club corporation and PETA corporation can contribute to political candidates. The Supreme Court ruled that contributing money to a political agenda by a corporation was covered by the 1st Amendment's freedom of speech. Why would a senator from Nevada want to restrict or throw out the 1st Amendment?

 

[longknife]

whitehall - because he is who he is - the biggest political embarrassment to the Silver State in its history.

 

[Dot Com]

All I can say is thangod for sen Reid